blender_ai_mesh_decimate

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the core operation, supported methods, vertex-group targeting, and UV preservation, but it does not state whether the mesh is modified in place permanently, whether an undo is available, or what side effects occur on the original object. This leaves important behavioral uncertainty for a mutating tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three short sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, followed by method support and key options, and every sentence contributes useful selection or invocation information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the essential purpose and several parameter-level behaviors, and the schema fully documents all parameters. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not explain the result of the operation, whether the object is changed destructively, or how this decimation relates to Blender's modifier system. For a mutation tool, this leaves moderate gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantic context: 'Reduce polygon count' clarifies the ratio parameter's intent, 'target specific vertex groups' maps to vertex_group, and 'optionally preserve UVs' reinforces preserve_uvs. This goes beyond the schema's per-field descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Reduce polygon count of a mesh while preserving shape.' It also names the supported methods and advanced targeting features, making it clear this is the polygon-reduction tool and distinguishing it from mesh cleanup, remeshing, or LOD-specific siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for reducing polygon count while retaining shape, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over related alternatives like blender_ai_mesh_optimize or blender_msfs_decimate_for_lod. No exclusions or alternative routing is provided, so the agent must infer usage from context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.